Does English sound like other Germanic languages?

<<But what a pity if one is suffered to miss the point I was making, isn't that so, "." ? >>

Nah. Always with you there is some "hidden mystery jewel or gem" that we're "failing to see" when you're wrong. Always :|



<<The fact is, there are extant ACCENTS in the British Isles which are recognisable in discrete and distinct patterns and which are based directly upon Norman French speech, vocal apprehension and inflection - notably, the speech of County Waterford in Ireland and some of what are considered upper-class accents ("Norman blood") in the south of England (the Home Counties and London itself). >>

HAHA. "NORMAN"? Those Viking freaks of nature who acquired their language from German Franks? Seriously. No.

Hell to the No!

<<You can see, then, that many forms of English have a profoundly and systematically diminished element of West Germanic phonology. >>

NO. We get what ur sayin' . HELL. NO!



<<pronounciation has been influenced by Frankish>>
I know. I just like pushin gregs boutons. But more accurately, French pronunciation IS Frankish pronunciation, or descended from it, assimiliated back, artificially to Romance.



<<How would the Gaelic explain the adjectival use? >>
I too agree. This is false etymology. Just like "love" in the sense of "zero score" ;)

I think going to extremes, such as disecting social accents to find a French connection is a stretch at best, utterly absurd at worst.

That is trying really hard to find the French in the haystack.

Tim Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:03 am GMT
I think going to extremes, such as disecting social accents to find a French connection is a stretch at best, utterly absurd at worst.

That is trying really hard to find the French in the haystack.


It has had an effect you cant deny it. well you can but i doubt it true. I mean I still think english is atleast 80 percent germanic. But there are some changes that caused our language to drift quite a bit. And i am not talking about vocab. As I said before that part is on the surface. You can write a book without using latin words, however in the germanic words have been modified by celtic and french influence. If it werent true we would sound more like someone with a heavy scots accents.

Also to think i got some agenda here is bs. I just simply wanna understand language better, and since english is the only language i speak, there not much else i can do.

>>english is atleast 80 percent germanic>>

I'll buy that - it's much more reasonable than previous Saxocentrical claims in these pages. And it ties in nicely with my recent statement above "that many forms of English have a profoundly and systematically diminished element of West Germanic phonology".

>>HAHA. "NORMAN"? Those Viking freaks of nature>>

No, those French-speaking soldiers of fortune from Normandy who came over with William the Bastard to rule England. They were a long way from Rollo's emergent Skandie gangers, old chum. But thanks for playing! ;}

>>That sounds like a bit of hoax folk wiki etymology ... How would the Gaelic explain the adjectival use?>>

No, not from Wiki, sorry. Knew it ages before that, old son.

The adjectival use of "Smashing !" came later (as often happens with colloquialisms) - long after its stand-alone use as an interjection. Compare the adjectival and adverbial use of "bloody", a contraction derived from the old English oath "By Our Lady !" (Oh, but I suppose you'll deem that a "hoax" as well - Ha !)

<<"that many forms of English have a profoundly and systematically diminished element of West Germanic phonology". >>

Modern English does show a slightly different phonology from Common West Germanic, but I'm not 100%, nor even 20% sold on it being due to Norman French speakers. Had the Norman Conquest not occurred, we would still probably be pronouncing our words the same way today.

Modern English is the descendant of merely one Middle English dialect, and yes, a dialect midpositioned between the others. We have lost the fricatives spelt "gh" and the clusters "kn", "gn", "hr", "fn", "hl" etc. but these alterations did not only occur in English. They also appear in Scandinavian languages, and also in Continental West Gmc languages. If anything, it was the previous Norman (Northmen) invaders who holp to change English phonology, but most could be owed to simple internal evolution.

The upper class Aristocratic accent was negligible in its impact on the general speech. It gets too much unwarranted attention.

>>The upper class Aristocratic accent was negligible in its impact on the general speech. It gets too much unwarranted attention>>

Never the less, Leasnam, that same accent was aspired to, striven for and taught for centuries. It was the speech of the baronial ruling class of Britain, those scions of Norman blood and identity (Normanitas in Latin) who replaced the old English christened names with their own Continental nomenclature at the baptismal font. French was the language of the palace, the tabernacle and the castle keep.

Just try unringing the bell that heralded Huntingdon, Chaucer and Shakespeare.

Nay, Sir, 'tis the Saxocentrical purists, whether dreamdrunk, churlish or wistful, who are getting too much unwarranted attention in these pages, I fear. Yet I welcome them.

<No, not from Wiki, sorry. Knew it ages before that, old son. >

Age does not excuse gullibility. These spurious derivations have been doing the rounds for years. Idle speculation begotten on vacant cluelessness did not originate with Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

<The adjectival use of "Smashing !" came later (as often happens with colloquialisms) - long after its stand-alone use as an interjection. >

Produce the evidence, old son.

<Compare the adjectival and adverbial use of "bloody", a contraction derived from the old English oath "By Our Lady !">

Another ancient bit of baseless Wiki-esque speculation. We have enough "d-----d"s in literature to know that, if "by our lady" had been a common adjectival intensifier, it would have left some trace of its transition into "bloody" - apart from that threadbare passage from Swift, of course, which someone will now produce.

Crikey, what a b'L'dy begrudger !

The reason it is so sparse for written records is that, far more than "damned", "By Our Lady" was considered highly offensive even in the minced oath "bloody" ; to-day indeed —though widely used throughout the British Commonwealth, Ireland and much of North America— "bloody" is often frowned upon, being still regarded as extremely rude and vulgar by many English speakers, even when they are unaware of its etymological origin and religious connotation.

But I think it survived the Reformation quite well, don't you, "@" ?

Next you'll be telling us "Crikey" is not a collapsed form of the old oath "Christ the King" - Ha !

I had written :
<The adjectival use of "Smashing!" came later (as often happens with colloquialisms) - long after its stand-alone use as an interjection> [< from the Gaelic phrase "Is maith sin" = "That is good"]

"@" replied :
>>Produce the evidence>>

Is maith sin go leor, a "@" !
(Smashing galore hehe -)
http://tinyurl.com/2bl98yw

<Next you'll be telling us "Crikey" is not a collapsed form of the old oath "Christ the King" - Ha ! >

I'm sorry, Q., but this is only a step away from the "for unlawful carnal knowledge" interpretation of "fuck".

Where have you ever seen "Christ the King" in "crikey"-like contexts, in pre-1830s literature?

And where are the transitional forms?

(Do none of you young fellows learn about evolution these days?)

<<Never the less, Leasnam, that same accent was aspired to, striven for and taught for centuries. It was the speech of the baronial ruling class of Britain, those scions of Norman blood and identity (Normanitas in Latin) who replaced the old English christened names with their own Continental nomenclature at the baptismal font. French was the language of the palace, the tabernacle and the castle keep. >>

Well, *was* is wiss the workword here.

I don't mind the Normans so much (and yes, Middle Latin borrowed extensively from Frankish, Lombardic, German, Saxon and Nordic tongues). I think it rather queeming that Norman 'Roger' echoes so well the Anglo-Saxon 'Hrothgar', 'Henri' 'Hamric', 'William' 'Wilhelm', and so on. Love those names!

I don't want to unring Chaucer's and Shakespeare's bells.
I only want the opportunity to ring one of mine own. With a different and more refreshing tone.

<With a different and more refreshing tone.>

I wouldn't begrudge you "queeming"; but ringing your own bell does give your posts the air of "Jabberwocky".